1. Field
The present disclosure relates to computer systems and methods in which data resources are shared among data consumers while preserving data integrity and consistency relative to each consumer. More particularly, the disclosure concerns an implementation of a mutual exclusion mechanism known as “read-copy update” in a user-level computing environment.
2. Description of the Prior Art
By way of background, read-copy update (also known as “RCU”) is a mutual exclusion technique that permits shared data to be accessed for reading without the use of locks, writes to shared memory, memory barriers, atomic instructions, or other computationally expensive synchronization mechanisms, while still permitting the data to be updated (modify, delete, insert, etc.) concurrently. The technique is well suited to both uniprocessor and multiprocessor computing environments wherein the number of read operations (readers) accessing a shared data set is large in comparison to the number of update operations (updaters), and wherein the overhead cost of employing other mutual exclusion techniques (such as locks) for each read operation would be high. By way of example, a network routing table that is updated at most once every few minutes but searched many thousands of times per second is a case where read-side lock acquisition would be quite burdensome.
The read-copy update technique implements data updates in two phases. In the first (initial update) phase, the actual data update is carried out in a manner that temporarily preserves two views of the data being updated. One view is the old (pre-update) data state that is maintained for the benefit of read operations that may have been referencing the data concurrently with the update. The other view is the new (post-update) data state that is seen by operations that access the data following the update. In the second (deferred update) phase, the old data state is removed following a “grace period” that is long enough to ensure that the first group of read operations will no longer maintain references to the pre-update data. The second-phase update operation typically comprises freeing a stale data element to reclaim its memory. In certain RCU implementations, the second-phase update operation may comprise something else, such as changing an operational state according to the first-phase update.
FIGS. 1A-1D illustrate the use of read-copy update to modify a data element B in a group of data elements A, B and C. The data elements A, B, and C are arranged in a singly-linked list that is traversed in acyclic fashion, with each element containing a pointer to a next element in the list (or a NULL pointer for the last element) in addition to storing some item of data. A global pointer (not shown) is assumed to point to data element A, the first member of the list. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that the data elements A, B and C can be implemented using any of a variety of conventional programming constructs, including but not limited to, data structures defined by C-language “struct” variables. Moreover, the list itself is a type of data structure.
It is assumed that the data element list of FIGS. 1A-1D is traversed (without locking) by multiple readers and occasionally updated by updaters that delete, insert or modify data elements in the list. In FIG. 1A, the data element B is being referenced by a reader r1, as shown by the vertical arrow below the data element. In FIG. 1B, an updater u1 wishes to update the linked list by modifying data element B. Instead of simply updating this data element without regard to the fact that r1 is referencing it (which might crash r1), u1 preserves B while generating an updated version thereof (shown in FIG. 1C as data element B′) and inserting it into the linked list. This is done by u1 acquiring an appropriate lock (to exclude other updaters), allocating new memory for B′, copying the contents of B to B′, modifying B′ as needed, updating the pointer from A to B so that it points to B′, and releasing the lock. In current versions of the Linux® kernel, pointer updates performed by updaters can be implemented using the rcu_assign_pointer( ) primitive. As an alternative to locking during the update operation, other techniques such as non-blocking synchronization or a designated update thread could be used to serialize data updates. All subsequent (post update) readers that traverse the linked list, such as the reader r2, will see the effect of the update operation by encountering B′ as they dereference B's pointer. On the other hand, the old reader r1 will be unaffected because the original version of B and its pointer to C are retained. Although r1 will now be reading stale data, there are many cases where this can be tolerated, such as when data elements track the state of components external to the computer system (e.g., network connectivity) and must tolerate old data because of communication delays. In current versions of the Linux® kernel, pointer dereferences performed by readers can be implemented using the rcu_dereference( ) primitive.
At some subsequent time following the update, r1 will have continued its traversal of the linked list and moved its reference off of B. In addition, there will be a time at which no other reader process is entitled to access B. It is at this point, representing an expiration of the grace period referred to above, that u1 can free B, as shown in FIG. 1D.
FIGS. 2A-2C illustrate the use of read-copy update to delete a data element B in a singly-linked list of data elements A, B and C. As shown in FIG. 2A, a reader r1 is assumed be currently referencing B and an updater u1 wishes to delete B. As shown in FIG. 2B, the updater u1 updates the pointer from A to B so that A now points to C. In this way, r1 is not disturbed but a subsequent reader r2 sees the effect of the deletion. As shown in FIG. 2C, r1 will subsequently move its reference off of B, allowing B to be freed following the expiration of a grace period.
In the context of the read-copy update mechanism, a grace period represents the point at which all running tasks (e.g., processes, threads or other work) having access to a data element guarded by read-copy update have passed through a “quiescent state” in which they can no longer maintain references to the data element, assert locks thereon, or make any assumptions about data element state. By convention, for operating system kernel code paths, a context switch, an idle loop, and user mode execution all represent quiescent states for any given CPU running non-preemptible code (as can other operations that will not be listed here). The reason for this is that a non-preemptible kernel will always complete a particular operation (e.g., servicing a system call while running in process context) prior to a context switch.
In FIG. 3, four tasks 0, 1, 2, and 3 running on four separate CPUs are shown to pass periodically through quiescent states (represented by the double vertical bars). The grace period (shown by the dotted vertical lines) encompasses the time frame in which all four tasks that began before the start of the grace period have passed through one quiescent state. If the four tasks 0, 1, 2, and 3 were reader tasks traversing the linked lists of FIGS. 1A-1D or FIGS. 2A-2C, none of these tasks having reference to the old data element B prior to the grace period could maintain a reference thereto following the grace period. All post grace period searches conducted by these tasks would bypass B by following the updated pointers created by the updater.
Grace periods may be synchronous or asynchronous. According to the synchronous technique, an updater performs the first phase update operation, blocks (waits) until a grace period has completed, and then implements the second phase update operation, such as by removing stale data. According to the asynchronous technique, an updater performs the first phase update operation, specifies the second phase update operation as a callback, then resumes other processing with the knowledge that the callback will eventually be processed at the end of a grace period. Advantageously, callbacks requested by one or more updaters can be batched (e.g., on callback lists) and processed as a group at the end of an asynchronous grace period. This allows asynchronous grace period overhead to be amortized over plural deferred update operations.
In operating system kernel implementations of RCU, callback registration and processing is performed by code sections whose execution is well-defined and highly deterministic. An example of such code is the call_rcu( ) primitive that registers a callback for deferred processing following an asynchronous grace period, and then invokes a callback processing primitive such as process_callbacks( ) to execute one or more pending callbacks at the end of a grace period. The situation is less favorable when RCU is run in user space. Current user-level versions of the call_rcu( ) primitive have limitations due to the fact that user-level applications generally do not have the degree of control over execution that is typically found in kernels.
For example, the user-space rcu library for the LTTng (Linux Trace Toolkit) Project includes a defer_rcu( ) primitive that updaters use to queue RCU callbacks (see the urcu_defer.c and urcu_defer.h files at git://lttng.org/usrspace-rcu.git). The urcu_defer.c file contains a primitive named “rcu_defer_register_thread( ) that calls a primitive named “start_defer_thread( )” to create a thread for executing callbacks. However, within the defer_rcu( ) primitive itself, a call is made to synchronize_rcu( ) to force a synchronous grace period if there are too many pending callbacks. The advantage of forcing a synchronous grace period is that it avoids out-of-memory conditions that could otherwise result in cases where there were never any naturally occurring synchronize_rcu( ) invocations. Unfortunately, the above-described implementation of defer_rcu( ) will block updaters in some cases, and is therefore not fully deterministic. This may not be desirable for the critical path of a real-time application. In FIG. 11 of M. Desnoyers et al., “User-Level Implementations of Read-Copy Update”, IEEE Transactions On Parallel And Distributed Systems, Vol. X, No. Y, July 2009, pp. 1-14, a user-space call_rcu( ) primitive is proposed that would invoke a primitive named “call_rcu_cleanup( )” to process callbacks in a separate thread following a grace period so that updaters invoking call_rcu( ) will be wait-free. However, this proposal envisions only a single global callback processing thread, which could become overwhelmed in large multiprocessor systems and would suffer gratuitous cache-miss overhead when invoking callbacks registered on other processors. Implementing this approach would be problematic if real-time response is desired.